Aides: Obama will use Arizona shootings to push for more gun restrictions

[GenSeneca]

No licensing or ban for any magazine would be my preference. If pocket wished to invent notions that no politician is proposing then fine but that's of no interest to me.

I'm asking you... If licensing for full auto's is acceptable then what would your argument be against licensing for high capacity magazines?

 

[dogtowner]

I'm asking you... If licensing for full auto's is acceptable then what would your argument be against licensing for high capacity magazines?

A magazine can't DO anything. That's akin to licensing the box bullets come in. Well I guess you could hurt someone if you threw it at them or used it as a bludgeon but the same applies to hammers or logs or in Michael Vick's care, dogs.

 

[GenSeneca]

A magazine can't DO anything.

A full auto machine gun can't do anything either.. In both cases you are talking about an inanimate object. It's the person using the object that bears full responsibility for how its used.

A) Full auto's are scary because they may be used to violate rights on a large scale, therefore the right to own a full auto must be reduced to a privilege that requires people obtain a license.

B) High capacity magazines are scary because they may be used to violate rights on a large scale, therefore the right to own a high cap mag must be reduced to a privilege that requires people obtain a license.

It's the same fallacious argument.

 

[dogtowner]

A full auto machine gun can't do anything either.. In both cases you are talking about an inanimate object. It's the person using the object that bears full responsibility for how its used.

A) Full auto's are scary because they may be used to violate rights on a large scale, therefore the right to own a full auto must be reduced to a privilege that requires people obtain a license.

B) High capacity magazines are scary because they may be used to violate rights on a large scale, therefore the right to own a high cap mag must be reduced to a privilege that requires people obtain a license.

It's the same fallacious argument.

Its not the full auto magazine thats licensed, its the weapon. You are the one with the problematic argument Gen.

And the restriction is soley to protect cops who had a hard time with the gangsters using them while the twenties were roaring for booze.

 

[GenSeneca]

Its not the full auto magazine thats licensed, its the weapon. You are the one with the problematic argument Gen.

You have no argument against licensing for high cap mags.

And the restriction is soley to protect cops who had a hard time with the gangsters using them while the twenties were roaring for booze.

The right to bear arms is to protect the public from the government, restrictions on that right to protect government from the public certainly qualifies as violating the "shall not be infringed" part of the constitution.

 

[dogtowner]

You have no argument against licensing for high cap mags.

The right to bear arms is to protect the public from the government, restrictions on that right to protect government from the public certainly qualifies as violating the "shall not be infringed" part of the constitution.

If you want a Tommy gun to defend yourself against the government you may have it. You are correct that this was the main purpose of the 2nd. If you want one just because you want one, same deal. You have not demonstrated any flaw in my argument but you aer welcome to believe whatever you wish.

 

[GenSeneca]

If you want a Tommy gun to defend yourself against the government you may have it. You are correct that this was the main purpose of the 2nd. If you want one just because you want one, same deal. You have not demonstrated any flaw in my argument but you aer welcome to believe whatever you wish.

This is not what you said earlier. Previously you stated that licensing for full auto's was acceptable. Which is it? If you need permission (a license) to exercise a right, then it is not a right but a privilege.

 

[dogtowner]

This is not what you said earlier. Previously you stated that licensing for full auto's was acceptable. Which is it? If you need permission (a license) to exercise a right, then it is not a right but a privilege.

You have to file deeds at the courthouse too. Does that make ownership not a right of property ? I get that you wish to make licensing an issue but you're not getting anywhere in defending that premise.

 

[GenSeneca]

You have to file deeds at the courthouse too. Does that make ownership not a right of property?

You are not required to obtain a license to purchase property.
You are not required to obtain a license to purchase a single shot or semi-auto firearm.
You are required to obtain a license to purchase a full auto firearm.

I get that you wish to make licensing an issue but you're not getting anywhere in defending that premise.

Lets say the Obama administration decides that after seeing the effects of Julian Assange and Wikileaks that Americans who wish to post on the internet must obtain a license. Would you consider that to be an infringement of your right to free speech?

 

[dogtowner]

You are not required to obtain a license to purchase property.
You are not required to obtain a license to purchase a single shot or semi-auto firearm.
You are required to obtain a license to purchase a full auto firearm.

1. Have to record the deal at the courthouse (realestate or certain other personal property) whats the difference ?
2. Have to pass a background check or in some cases get a license (state level). whats the difference ?
3. Agreed. But no different than above.

Lets say the Obama administration decides that after seeing the effects of Julian Assange and Wikileaks that Americans who wish to post on the internet must obtain a license. Would you consider that to be an infringement of your right to free speech?

No. I do not own the internet so I cannot claim exclusive right of use. I rent time for a government created entity. Wikileaks is dubious as a free speech example. Release of data not your own and which you know to be confidential to your employer and for which you agreed to respect the confidentiality of is, at best, questionable and at worst, criminal.

 

[GenSeneca]

1. Have to record the deal at the courthouse (realestate or certain other personal property) whats the difference?

Recording your purchase of a home is not the same thing as being forced to get permission to purchase a home.

2. Have to pass a background check or in some cases get a license (state level). whats the difference?

There is no difference. If you need permission from the government to exercise a right, then it is not a right but a privilege.

No.

Do you see any difference between a Right and a Privilege? If so, please explain the difference.